March 28, 2024
BANGOR DAILY NEWS (BANGOR, MAINE

Rockland man innocent in influence case > Judge rules Councilor Reilley was too drunk to threaten police

ROCKLAND — Using a movie scene to prove his point, Superior Court Justice Francis Marsano has found City Councilor Patrick Reilley innocent of pulling rank to influence the police.

Knox County District Attorney Geoffrey Rushlau had charged Reilley with improper influence for comments allegedly made by the councilor during his arrest last April for operating while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

At his trial in November, Reilley was found guilty of OUI, but a Knox County Superior Court jury was unable to reach a verdict on the improper influence charge. It was left to the judge to decide whether Reilley should be tried once more or found to be innocent.

Police officers testifying at the trial said that during the arrest, an intoxicated Reilley reminded them of his position on the council, talked about voting on the police budget and asked them for a break.

When he took the witness stand, Reilley admitted being drunk but said he could not remember making the statements attributed to him by police.

In a footnote to his Christmas Eve decision exonerating Reilley, Justice Marsano referred to a scene in the movie “Breaker Morant” to bolster his position. The scene deals with a character who testifies about statements he made in a pub and insists, “That was the beer talking, sir. Not me.”

Filmed in Australia in 1979, “Breaker Morant” tells the true story of three soldiers court-martialed on trumped-up charges by a power structure that would stop at nothing to satisfy its political aims. Although suggestions were made during the trial that the Reilley case was politically motivated, evidence of sinister behavior was never produced.

Reilley testified that he consumed quantities of wine, beer and tequila before climbing behind the wheel of his pickup truck the night of April 16. A subsequent test of Reilley’s blood-alcohol level revealed that it was more than twice the legal limit when he was arrested.

Throughout the trial, defense attorney Robert Levine argued that Reilley was too drunk to make coherent, threatening statements to police and was not in command of his faculties at the time of his arrest.

Levine also questioned the logic of the prosecution’s position that while Reilley was too drunk to drive a car, he was not drunk enough to run his mouth. Justice Marsano agreed.

“This case tests the hypothesis of whether a two-count charge” where “both of which have as the significant word `influence’ can be successfully tried together,” Marsano noted in his ruling.

The problem was, Marsano emphasized, that drunken driving was not a crime involving a culpable state of mind, while using improper influence was the opposite and required a clear mind.

“The evidence relevant to both charges overlapped,” Marsano stated.

Referring to testimony given by Reilley during the trial, Marsano observed that “The obvious implication is that he did not remember what he said because he was so intoxicated, or under the influence, that he could not have knowingly or intentionally made the statements necessary for him to have made in order for him to be convicted of the offense of improper influence.”

Marsano concluded his ruling by noting that “The extent of the impairment of the defendant was, in this court’s view, consistent with his not having remembered saying the incriminatory words. The court accepts that testimony. But even if it did not, there is insufficient evidence of the defendant’s mental state to allow conviction for improper influence beyond a reasonable doubt.”

When asked to comment on the case, Levine said Monday that he and Reilley “obviously were very pleased with the decision.”

The case has been a heated public topic since Reilley, the owner of a downtown bookstore, was arrested last April. Levine managed to get in hot water with Justice Marsano by making written statements the judge found to be improper. Marsano cited Levine with a charge of contempt. Levine’s request that his contempt ruling be reconsidered is still being reviewed by Justice Marsano.

Attempts to reach either District Attorney Rushlau or his assistant Rick Morse for their reaction to Justice Marsano’s decision were unsuccessful as both had taken Monday off.


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

You may also like